Be Careful: Russia is Back to Stay in the Middle East

Russia is back. President Vladimir Putin wants the world to acknowledge that Russia remains a global power. He is making his stand in Syria.

The Soviet Union acquired the Tardus Naval Port in Syria in 1971 without any real purpose for it. With their ships welcomed in Algeria, Cuba or Vietnam, Tardus was too insignificant to be developed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lacked the funds to spend on the base and no reason to invest in it.

The Russian return to the Middle East brought them first to where the Soviet Union had had its closest ties. Libya had been a major buyer of arms and many of the military officers had studied in the Soviet Union. Russia was no longer a global power, but it could be used by the Libyans as a counter force to block domination by the United States and Europeans.

When Gaddafi fell, Tardus became Russia’s only presence in the region. That and the discovery of vast gas deposits just offshore have transformed the once insignificant port into a strategic necessity.

Earlier at the United Nations, Russia had failed to realize that Security Council Resolution 1973 that was to implement a new policy of “responsibility to protect” cloaked a hidden agenda. It was to be turned from a no-fly zone into a free-fire zone for NATO. That strategic blunder of not vetoing the resolution led to the destruction of Gaddafi’s regime and cost Russia construction contracts and its investments in Libyan gas and oil to the tune of 10 billion dollars.

That was one more in a series of humiliating defeats; and something that Putin will not allow to happen again while he is president. Since his time as an officer in the KGB, he has seen the Soviet Empire lose half of its population, a quarter of its land mass, and most of its global influence. He has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.”

In spite of all of the pressure from Washington and elsewhere to have him persuade Bashar Al-Assad to relinquish power, Putin is staying loyal to the isolated regime. He is calculating that Russia can afford to lose among the Arabs what little prestige that it has remaining and gain a major political and economic advantage in Southern Europe and in the Eastern Mediterranean.

What Russia lost through the anti-Al-Assad alliance was the possibility to control the natural gas market across Europe and the means to shape events on the continent. In July 2011, Iran, Iraq, and Syria agreed to build a gas pipeline from the South Pars gas field in Iran to Lebanon and across the Mediterranean to Europe. The pipeline that would have been managed by Gazprom would have carried 110 million cubic meters of gas. About a quarter of the gas would be consumed by the transit countries, leaving seventy or so million cubic meters to be sold to Europe.

Violence in Iraq and the Syrian civil war has ended any hope that the pipeline will be built, but not all hope is lost. One possibility is for Al-Assad to withdraw to the traditional Aliwite coastal enclave to begin the partitioning of Syria into three or more separate zones, Aliwite, Kurdish, and Sunni. Al-Assad’s grandfather in 1936 had asked the French administrators of the Syrian mandate to create a separate Aliwite territory in order to avoid just this type of ethnic violence.

What the French would not do circumstance may force the grandson to accept as his only choice to survive. His one hundred thousand heavily armed troops would be able to defend the enclave.

The four or five million Aliwites, Christians, and Druze would have agricultural land, water, a deep water port and an international airport. Very importantly, they would have the still undeveloped natural gas offshore fields that extend from Israel, Lebanon, and Cyprus. The Aliwite Republic could be energy self-sufficient and even an exporter. Of course, Russia’s Gazprom in which Putin has a vital interest would get a privileged position in the development of the resource.

In an last effort to bring the nearly two year long civil war to an end, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov urged Syrian president Bashar al-Assad at the end of December to start talks with the Syrian opposition in line with the agreements for a cease fire that was reached in Geneva on 30 June. The Russians have also extended the invitation to the Syrian opposition National Coalition head, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib. The National Coalition refuses to negotiate with Al-Assad and Al-Assad will not relinquish power voluntarily.

The hardened positions of both sides leaves little hope for a negotiated settlement; and foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has made it clear that only by an agreement among the Syrians will Russia accept the removal of Al-Assad. Neither do they see a settlement through a battlefield victory which leaves only a partitioning that will allow the civil war to just wind down as all sides are exhausted.

The Russians are troubled by what they see as a growing trend among the Western Powers to remove disapproved administrations in other sovereign countries and a program to isolate Russia. They saw the U.S involvement in the Ukraine and Georgia. There was the separation of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections. There was the extending of NATO to the Baltic States after pledging not to expand the organization to Russia’s frontier.

Again, Russia is seeing Washington’s hand in Syria in the conflict with Iran. The United States is directing military operations in Syria with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia at a control center in Adana about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to the American air base in Incirlik. The Program by President Obama to have the CIA acquire heavy weapons at a facility in Benghazi to be sent to Turkey and onward to Syria is the newest challenge that Putin cannot allow to go unanswered. It was the involvement of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the arms trade that may have contributed to his murder; and the Russians are not hesitating to remind the United States and Europeans that their dealings with the various Moslem extremists is a very dangerous game.

The Russians are backing their determination to block another regime change by positioning and manning an advanced air defense system in what is becoming the Middle East casino. Putin is betting that NATO will not risk in Syria the cost that an air operation similar to what was employed over Libya will impose. Just in case Russia’s determination is disregarded and Putin’s bluff is called, Surface to surface Iskander missiles have been positioned along the Jordanian and Turkish frontiers. They are aimed at a base in Jordan operated by the United States to train rebels and at Patriot Missile sites and other military facilities in Turkey.

Putin is certain that he is holding the winning hand in this very high stakes poker game. An offshore naval task force, the presence of Russian air defense forces, an electronic intelligence center in latakia, and the port facilities at Tardus will guarantee the independence of the enclave. As the supplier of sixty percent of Turkey’s natural gas, Moscow does have leverage that Ankara will not be able to ignore; and Ankara well knows that gas is one of Putin’s diplomatic weapons.

When the Turks and U.S see that there is little chance of removing Al-Assad, they will have no option other than to negotiate a settlement with him; and that would involve Russia as the protector and the mediator. That would establish Russia’s revived standing as a Mediterranean power; and Putin could declare confidently that “Russia is back.” After that, the Russians will be free to focus upon their real interests in the region.

And what is Russia’s real interest? Of course, it is oil and gas and the power that control of them can bring.

First of all the I think you could publish a better picture of the author. Secondly what are his qualifications for writing what he writes? Or is he just blowing off steam? His description gives no indication why we should take what he writes seriously...

Secondly, re this article, Russia never left the ME. According to some reports they were instrumental in bringing Khomeini from Paris to Tehrsn in 1979. And they've been in Iran and Iraq and Syria ever since.

"What Russia lost through the anti-Al-Assad alliance was the possibility to control the natural gas market across Europe and the means to shape events on the continent."

The Russians already control a substantial portion of this through North Stream and the coming bSouth Stream. They are also within a hairsbreadth of controlling the oil and gas pipelines through Georgia if war should break out again. Any construction in Syria is on hold indefinitly until something approaching stability returns there - possibly in a generation or two, possibly never.

None of the 'Powers' intervening in Syria seem to have any idea what may replace Assad eventually or how regime change may unfold. It is completely out of anyone's control. The Russians are pursuing damage limitation, the West damage aggravation.

Syria is disappearing as a country. What may emerhge will likely please and benefit noone esp. not the inhabitants of the area. Its THE ME Black Hole. Whatever the West does Iran will undermine. Whatever Iran does, the West will undermine. Iran is backed by Russia and China. The West is the US and Europe. Its the classic East-West confontation moved from Europe of the Cold War to a globalised conflict meeting in Syria. Its the West vs Eurasia.

Its secularism (Syria was a secular state) vs Jihadism and Wahhavbism. Its probavbly the most dangerous continuous (with no prospect of an end in sight) conflict for the world since the beginning of the Israeli-Arab confrontation.

Suzanne Scott on February 26 2013 said:

Mr. Andrews, oil price is publishing the only photo it has of Mr. Imonti. So sorry you do not like it.
Felix is an internationally known writer and political and economic analyst. Of course, you may not approve of his credentials...by the way, is anyone questioning yours? A well done article by Felix, but I agree....Russia has never really left....but they are not foolish enough to risk another Afghanistan like invasion, where they made enough enemies to last a million lifetimes. Mr. Putin is guiding his nation in carefully selected strikes, options and moves...they have neither the will nor cash flow to engage in wars all over the world. A lesson the USA needs to learn.
Thanks oil price for another excellent article by Felix Imonti

Philip Andrews on February 27 2013 said:

Suzanne Scott

Noone is questioning my credentials because I'm not writing an article. I'm merely a reader who is bothering to comment.

As a matter of interest I've spent much of my life involved in a private research capacity with both Russia and the ME. So I have some notion of what I'm talking about.

No, Russia won't do another Afghanistan ('enough enemies to last a million lifetimes' - slightly OTT if I may say so). She did a Georgia instead and achieved more in 2 weeks of war to improve her political secvurity than the West achieved in 10 years. The West failed the Afghan lesson and blindly followed suite. Now the West has the enemies, not Russia. In fact I would suppose that Russia is relatively more welcome in the ME than the West at present. Leaving aside misconceptions sbout an anticipated sudden Westernisation of the entire Arab world (another version of neo-con regime change...?)thrtough the so called Arab Spring...

Putin has made Russia one of the more stsable countries in the world, better off than the EU and less indebted than the US. Russia is Russia and like the ME will not change. The BRIC countries will take back power from the West which is declining.

You may take this as you will, and I still exercise my right to disagree wuth Mr imonti's article, and to question his credentials as an author.

Thank you for bothering with my response.

Clothcap on February 27 2013 said:

Hi Felix, got here from Zerohedge.
I don't see Putin or the Syrian people favouring a carve-up of the country. That would allow bilderberg to establish more bases on Iran's border and a cessation of hostilities at this time would allow attention to move to Iran, the globalists' real target. Syria intact and with a freely elected gov't is a stumbling block, Assad would win such an election hence the desperation of the bilderberg directed West in avoiding peace at any price.
The Syrians have expressed repeatedly they don't want intervention, they don't want the foreign terrorists, mercs and extremists swarming over the country and in common with Egypt they certainly don't want sharia.
The majority of the Syrian army is sunni. If there were support for a carve up it would be reflected there, instead we see 7000 volunteering to join the army, again mostly sunni.
Rest of the article I agree with and it is well put together and presented. I'll use part of it for my next livejournal post if that's ok with you. Thanks for writing it.

Peter Lekh on February 28 2013 said:

An excellent article that does a surprisingly honest evaluation of the strategic motives of the parties complicit in this unfortunate civil war.

Ronald Wagner on March 01 2013 said:

LNG can free the region from dependency on oil to a great degree. Vehicles and engines should be converted to bifuel systems. That would help clean the air. If biogas is used, it is carbon neutral. Europe needs to start fracking and maximizing biogas. North America will also be ready to ship LNG. The geopolitical goal must be energy independence from the Middle East, and Russia. We should have learned our lesson by now. East Africa, Australia, and other nations will also be exporting LNG.

Ronald Wagner on March 01 2013 said:

Excellent comment. Russia will be losing it's high oil and gas prices as time goes on. It is making tremendous investments in pipelines and LNG, but will have plenty of oil and LNG competition that will greatly harm its bottom line. It will diminish as China continues to rise. Its declining population is another reason it is becoming less important.